I am really having a good time watching liberals try to figure this out. The problem is that the solution is behind one of those famous liberal blind spots. They will never get it. They CAN'T get it.

Pitts is only one of many who sees the talk radio problem as brilliant liberals being handicapped by being unable to relate to butt-ignorant conservatives. One of the blind spots liberals have is that they are utterly convinced down to their bones that they are more intelligent, refined, and perceptive than conservatives. Nothing could convince them otherwise. Most of them are further convinced that everyone who listens to conservative talk radio are knuckle-dragging trailer denizens, and have no problem announcing this to every conservative they know. I mean, it goes without saying, right? There is not one Republican president in the last thirty years that liberals do not believe was barely able to manipulate a doorknob without help from advisors.

It's nice to know that everyone who listens to talk radio is a "simple-minded yahoo," a blatant and undeserved stereotype that sounds even worse coming from a black columnist who should know a thing or two about unfair stereotypes.

Hey, it's obvious from my posts that I am much stupider than all the liberals who post here, right? I listen to Rush. What more do you need to know? I could fill a whole page with the names of conservative intellectuals, past and present, light-years smarter than 90 percent of the denizens of the District of Columbia. But who would notice?

From an old interview with Mario Cuomo (failed talk show host), interviewed by Phil Donahue (another failed talk show host):

CUOMO: We were talking about Rush Limbaugh. Let’s see if we can’t adjust our perspective here. You have Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh tells one side of the story. He exaggerates it. He hyperbolizes. He is a master entertainer. There’s no question about that. He’s very bright. He’s probably a very good fellow, too. He does not discuss the issues. He does not debate the issues. He doesn’t want to give you a full view of the issues. He won’t even entertain a debate. He doesn’t want any kind of a debate. And he pleases a lot of people, because he says what they want to hear. So does Bob Grant here in New York. So does the Murdoch papers, “The New York Post.” We don’t have counterparts on the liberal side.

DONAHUE: Why is that, Governor?

CUOMO: Well, because we believe in subtlety. We believe in telling the whole truth. We don’t want to exaggerate. You see, look, they write their message with crayons. We use fine-point quills.

The fact that liberals believe this, and are not shy about telling everyone about it, may have a little something to do with their problems in picking up a middle American audience. But what do I know...I'm just a simple minded yahoo :()_ (drool, drool)

The alternative to the "stupid conservatives" theory, that their audience is perfectly able to perceive and analyze their positions, and simply disagree with them, is inconceivable to liberals. I watched the pretzels that liberals twisted themselves into to explain the losses in the 2002 elections with every possible explanation but one: the voters understood them just fine, and simply did not like the ideas of the Democratic candidates. Liberals trying to figure out the talk radio problem are going through similar gyrations.

As far as "complexity of discussion" is concerned, most simple and clear ideas do not require extensive elaboration. If someone is trying to dilute everything down to nuances, uncertainties, and shades of gray, there may be something they are trying to hide. If a person explaining something is difficult to follow, or seems to be adding unneeded layers of interpretation, he may be a deep, analytical person attempting to arrive at a conclusion. It is also possible that he may be simply full of shit, or trying desperately to avoid an obvious conclusion.

Example of a simple idea:

--All people who listen to talk radio are simple-minded yahoos.

--Brosz listens to talk radio. A lot.

Do we draw the obvious conclusion? Does it match the facts? Or do we have to go back and reexamine the initial premise? Most liberals deal with this sort of thing by pretending they never saw the logical sequence in the first place.

Another possible reason for the "pen vs. crayon" theory: The political Left requires a great deal of complexity in their discussions because it's required to hide their actual agenda. Nobody is going to win points by jumping right out with the true long term goals of the Democratic Party. Liberal politicians succeed in general elections by concealing their socialist/collectivist views, and by extension, so do liberal talk show hosts.

To make it less complex, they have to blow a great deal more smoke up your skirt to make themselves palatable.

Hey, it's as good a theory as the "stupid conservative" one.